The X Commandments

Ah yes, the Quakers:

In 1657, a boatload of Quaker missionaries from England landed on Long Island. One of them, Robert Hodgson, drew large crowds to his meetings. He was arrested, imprisoned, flogged and treated very severely. At last some of the Dutch colonists interceded on his behalf and secured his unconditional release. Many continued to respond to the Friends message in spite of a firm edict issued against it by Governor Peter Stuyvesant. Finally on December 27, 1657, the citizens of Flushing drew up a magnificently worded protest reminding their Governor that their charter allowed them "to have and enjoy Liberty of Conscience according to the Custome and manner of Holland, without molestation or disturbance." This came to be known as the Flushing Remonstrance. It was the first time that a group of settlers in the New World petitioned the government for religious freedom. It was commemorated in a United States postage stamp issued three hundred years later.

Meanwhile the persecution of Friends in Puritan Massachusetts grew more intense. Friends were lashed behind carts and whipped from town to town. They were branded with a "H" for heretic; they had their tongues bored through with a hot iron; their ears were cut off; they were banished. Finally Governor John Endicott succeeded in having the death penalty invoked for any Friends who returned to the colony after being banished beyond its borders. Four Quakers were hung on Boston Common--William Robinson, Marmaduke Stephenson, William Leddra and Mary Dyer. She was the first woman to suffer death on these s h o r e s for her religious convictions. Today a statue of her stands on Boston Common, a reminder to all that our religious freedom was bought at a precious price.

http://thorn.pair.com/earlyq.htm

I have a third copied section and I will paste here since it says it as well as I could:

from URL: http://www.rbvincent.com/usconstitution.htm
Article Title: Christianity and the American Constitution by Bob Vincent

Until well into my life-time, the overwhelming majority of Americans believed that the United States was a Christian nation.  In believing that, they did not desire the persecution of other religions, nor did they want to see people forced to become Christians, nor did they believe that one Christian denomination should be favored at the expense of others.  They rejected the concept of one Christian denomination functioning as an established national Church, as the Churches of England and Scotland still do today in Great Britain.
But Americans overwhelmingly believed that Christian ideas and principles should receive favorable treatment and that its understanding of Moral Law should undergird the laws of the United States and the individual states.  When other people’s religious practices came into conflict with Moral Law, Moral Law, not the practices of other religions, was always supreme.  People were free to believe as they saw fit, but they could not practice their beliefs when those practices ran contrary to morality; they had to live by the Christian based laws of the United States.  This can readily be seen through the decisions of the United States Supreme Court.  As one example of how this has been worked out, one may note Davis v. Beason cited below, where Mormons were forbidden to practice polygamy, an early tenet of their faith, because it was contrary to Moral Law as understood by historic Christianity.
Two parts of the Constitution are often cited as evidence against this historic understanding of the role of Christianity in American public life:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
The Constitution of the United States of America, Article 6
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The Constitution of the United States of America, The Bill of Rights, Amendment I
Yet this same Constitution reflects a Christian understanding of morality:
“If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.”
The Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 7
The Historical Understanding of Christianity and the Constitution
“Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the First Amendment to it . . . the general if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state so far as was not incompatible with the private religious rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation . . . .The real object of the amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government.”
[Justice Joseph Story (who served on the Supreme Court from 1811-1845) Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 2 Vol. 2:593-95, 2nd Ed. Boston: Little Brown (1905)]
Justice Story’s understanding reflects the thinking of the framers of the Constitution, who expressed unbridled faith in God in the Declaration of Independence:
“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitles them . . .

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . .

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, We mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” (emphases mine.)
Such an understanding of the foundation of the American law was still reflected in the decisions of the United States Supreme Court just over one hundred years ago.  Justice Josiah Brewer wrote on February 29, 1892, “Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.” [Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457-458, 465-471, 36 L ed 226. (1892).]
A distinctively Christian view of the law is also reflected in Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890):
“Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho . . . It was never intended or supposed that the (First) amendment could be invoked as a protection against legislation for the punishment of acts inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society. With man's relations to his Maker and the obligations he may think they impose, and the manner in which an expression shall be made by him of his belief on those subjects, no interference can be permitted, provided always the laws of society, designed to secure its peace and prosperity, and the morals of its people, are not interfered with. However free the exercise of religion may [133 U.S. 333, 343] be, it must be subordinate to the criminal laws of the country, passed with reference to actions regarded by general consent as properly the subjects of punitive legislation. There have been sects which denied as a part of their religious tenets that there should be any marriage tie, and advocated promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, as prompted by the passions of its members. And history discloses the fact that the necessity of human sacrifices, on special occasions, has been a tenet of many sects. Should a sect of either of these kinds ever find its way into this country, swift punishment would follow the carrying into effect of its doctrines, and no heed would be given to the pretense that, as religious beliefs, their supporters could be protected in their exercise by the constitution of the United States. Probably never before in the history of this country has it been seriously contended that the whole punitive power of the government for acts, recognized by the general consent of the Christian world in modern times as proper matters for prohibitory legislation, must be suspended in order that the tenets of a religious sect encouraging crime may be carried out without hindrance.” (emphasis mine.)
The Constitution and Blue Laws
What does the reference to Sunday in Article I, Section 7 above [“If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) . . .”] constitute? It reflects the thinking that underlies what are commonly called “Blue Laws” and demonstrates that the framers of the Constitution did not have a non-theistic, abstract concept of law. The federal courts, in striking down state laws about Sunday, have done so recognizing that these laws reflect a commitment to a Christian understanding of the Ten Commandments:

“The parentage of these laws is the Fourth Commandment; and they serve and satisfy the religious predispositions of our Christian communities.” (The Supreme Court’s 1961 ruling on four separate cases, challenging Sunday closing laws: McGowan v. Maryland; Two Guys from Harrison-Allentown v. McGinley; Braunfeld v. Brown; and Gallagher v. Crown Kosher Supermarket) Article I, Section 7 demonstrates that the Moral Law of God, as understood by the followers of the Christian faith, is the foundation of our Civil Laws.
Religious Tests
While the framers of the Constitution were absolutely opposed to a national, established Church, they understood that in order for people’s words to be believed in court, they had to believe in God and future rewards and punishments in the world to come.  At the time of the ratification of the federal constitution,  most states had constitutionally defined, basic sets of beliefs that were necessary to be held by those who took oaths or held office.  These were not seen to be in violation of the national constitution.  As but one example, a person may note Article I of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, written in its original form by Benjamin Franklin and others:

“Religious Freedom
“Section 3. All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship.

“Religion
“Section 4. No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.” (emphasis mine.)
In early America the very understanding of the word “oath” meant that the person taking it believed in God.
Oath:  “A solemn affirmation or declaration, made with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed. The appeal to God in an oath, implies that the person imprecates his vengeance and renounces his favor if the declaration is false, or if the declaration is a promise, the person invokes the vengeance of God if he should fail to fulfill it. A false oath is called perjury.”
Webster’s Dictionary (1828)
This understanding is reflected in how “Article 6” was explained in the ratifying conventions.  For example, one may consider the words of James Iredell at North Carolina’s ratifying convention:
Wednesday, July 30, 1788
The North Carolina State Ratifying Convention

‘According to the modern definition of an oath, it is considered a  “solemn appeal to the Supreme Being, for the truth of what is said, by a person who believes in the existence of a Supreme Being and in a future state of rewards and punishments, according to that form which will bind his conscience most.” It was long held that no oath could be administered but upon the New Testament, except to a Jew, who was allowed to swear upon the Old. According to this notion, none but Jews and Christians could take an oath; and heathens were altogether excluded. At length, by the operation of principles of toleration, these narrow notions were done away. Men at length considered that there were many virtuous men in the world who had not had an opportunity of being instructed either in the Old or New Testament, who yet very sincerely believed in a Supreme Being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments . . . (Mr. Iredell describes a British court case involving a man from India who was neither a Christian nor a Jew and then concluded.) It appeared that, according to the tenets of this religion, its members believed in a Supreme Being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments. It was accordingly held by the judges, upon great consideration, that the oath ought to be received; they considering that it was probable those of that religion were equally bound in conscience by an oath according to their form of swearing, as they themselves were by one of theirs; and that it would be a reproach to the justice of the country, if a man, merely because he was of a different religion from their own, should be denied redress of an injury he had sustained. Ever since this great case, it has been universally considered that, in administering an oath, it is only necessary to inquire if the person who is to take it, believes in a Supreme Being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments. If he does, the oath is to be administered according to that form which it is supposed will bind his conscience most. It is, however, necessary that such a belief should be entertained, because otherwise there would be nothing to bind his conscience that could be relied on; since there are many cases where the terror of punishment in this world for perjury could not be dreaded.’ (emphases mine.)
[Elliot, Jonathan, ed. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787. . . . 5 vols. 2d ed. 1888. Reprint. New York: Burt Franklin, n.d., Volume 5, Amendment I (Religion), Document 52.]
The Establishment Clause
Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter to a group of Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut states that the purpose of the First Amendment was to build “a wall of separation between church and state.”  Yet what President Jefferson meant by this wall is patently obvious from the weight of historical evidence cited above:  namely, that this did not mean that there could be no point of contact between church and state.  Civil governments have all kinds of laws that churches must obey:  building codes, fire safety codes and zoning ordinances.  None of these violate the liberty of churches to worship God according to their own liberty of conscience.  Furthermore, there are times when the members of ecclesiastical bodies are simply unable to decide issues without submitting to the judgment of civil courts.  A prime example of this would be contentions over the ownership of the church’s property.
Thomas Jefferson’s phrase in 1802 must be understood in light of what he said in his “Second Inaugural Address,” in 1805:
“In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it, but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of the church or state authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies.”
Christian people are free to influence legislation that is in keeping with the moral principles of Christianity, and Christian parents are duty bound to see to it that their children are educated in light of Christian principles and morality.  A godless educational system is a dreadful curse to American society, the very idea of which would have been abjured by the founders of our nation.
“Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up.” (Deuteronomy 6:4-7.)
Bob Vincent

Queen Elizabeth 1 wanted to firmly establish the Church of England as THE CHURCH and she attempted to have all religious groups conform to the Anglican Church. The Puritans, another group in the Anglican Church, wanted to purify" the church of all Roman Catholic ceremonies and practices and bring about further reforms. Both groups wanted to be a church unto themselves but they were being persecuted for their attempts to run their churches the way they wished rather than the way the bishops of the Anglican Church wanted the churches run.

It was during the end of Elizabeth's years as Queen and the beginning of James' reign that the Separatists left England, fleeing to Holland where there was more acceptance of different religious beliefs and, from 1620 on to America. Despite his treatment of the non-conformists, it was during James' reign, and with his support, that the version of the Bible we know as the King James Version was translated. His son, Charles became King (1625-1649) and proved to be far more uncompromising than his father. It was during his reign that Reverend William Walton and his fellow Puritans educated at Cambridge began to fear for their lives. The Archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud, inflamed anti-Puritan feeling and caused a big wave of emigration of Puritans to America.

http://www.richmondancestry.org/pilgrim.shtml

Lovely story about how the pilgrims/puritans fled here because of "persecution" and an even "lovelier"  story about how they treated others that didn't believe exactly as they did.

Historically jenn it has not been shown here on this forum that atheistic s followed links except in cases where the link was by another atheistic. The atheistic s have truth phobia triggered by a resistance to morality except on an at-will basis.

They practice the doctrine that any moral prohibition whose source can be perceived as having a religious origin should be intentionally violated in a unified effort regardless of consequence to man or beast.

The pilgrims/puritans, quakers, were not the founding fathers of this country.

 You make NO sense whatsoever.

ARob,   I am not one that says that the Constitution was to be a religious document.  I do believe that the freedoms that were treasured were derived from the lack of them that our early settlers found under the rule in Europe/England and the Church of England.  I do not believe that the Constitution or our laws that the country was started with or meant to run the Country and Government were in any way to be connected with the 10 Commandments as that would establish the Theocracy that our Founding Fathers were so wanting to avoid.  The majority of those who wrote our Constitution and designed this country however I do believe were Christians and men of Faith who believed in God but also felt that Religious freedom meant that a persons individual beliefs were not to be dictated by Government but rather protected by Government.  I also do not believe that these men did not write God out of the Country but instead had a profound respect and belief in God that was very personal to them.  They, however, did not want to establish a Christian Nation dictating the Church and specific belief of each individual but rather established a country and a Government that would protect each individual's right to exercise their religion and beliefs.

So if I have looked over a question or have not answered a specific question you had then please clarify it and I shall endevour to address it.

If you read history you can rightly say religion has changed some since the days of the pilgrims, but not enough. Christians, as a whole, still feel persecuted as they did then, and just like the pilgrims, still feel they have the right to persecute others that don't believe the way they do.

You could be right because you are an expert at making NO sense.

Clone or bill wannabe? I think it's become a battle of the forum preacher wannabes like RP said.

I wish I had the wisdom and 1/2 the knowledge that Bill has accumulated from his service with and for the Country.  Besides the fact that Bill deserves my respect as my elder he has done much in service to the Country.  While I have had difficulties with Bill as a fellow Christian he is my brother in Christ and while we can disagree on doctrine we both have the wish that God's Holy Spirit will manifest himself to each that searches for Him. 

Bill may rub some people raw at times but I consider him a thoughtful man who is a dedicated Christian who believes he has a mission just like each of you have a mission and an agenda also. 

Bill and I may not be the same but in one respect we are both clones as we are with every other true Christian.  Each of us are partakers of the same Holy Spirit and together are parts of God's Kingdom and look to Jesus Christ as our Savior and sacrifice for our sins.

Well said gb

GB, I wish you and bill had even one smidgen of the wisdom you think you do. It's not hard to copy and paste bible verses that agree with your off kilter way of thinking. It takes zero wisdom to insinuate things about other posters and groups of people as you two constantly do, and then try to "play the innocent or the victim, or misunderstood" when called on it. Neither you nor bill bring anything new to the table when it comes to the bible or religion in general.  And no gb, you and bill are not clones of the good decent christians that I know.

jenn, I believe you're getting mad. Your old self is showing.

I cloned YOU first thing this morning when I got up. Then I flushed.

Your are one disgusting thing. If it keeps you off the streets, have fun.

It also takes no particular amount of wisdom to serve your country.

Going by BeeG's age-I'm figuring he got drafted anyway, but even if he didn't get drafted-a volunteer doesn't hafta be a rocket scientist to pass the ASVAB.

Lotta dumb guys served. They used to call those guys "BICs" 'cause they were disposable and before that "cannon fodder."

I'm a tenth grade dropout and I served in the 80s.

Man... Some of you christians will assign "village wise man" status to just about ANYbody who makes enough noise....

Pfft.

Truer words have never been spoken (or typed) GB and Bill are very good examples of Christians.  Pay close attention to what the do and say. It is quite revealing. They make the case for atheism here in this forum on a daily basis.

Thanks guys!

I suppose it's a good thing for someone to be thankful about then because the lot of atheist on here leave little to brag about or serve as an example to exemplify.  . 

Their greatest argument for atheism is to point to another person (much less a Christian)  that they esteem to be lesser than they are rather than allowing their own attributes or their arguments to be persuasive enough to convince a neutral person that they have something special.  Fact is what they have and offer is "nothing" of their own.  What atheism has to offer is insecurity, no answers, a drawn out captivity to a grudge, anger, or resentment of Church, Religion, or anyone who represents such so that instead of enjoying life for what it has to offer and the beauty of what all God has given us they have to find personal satisfaction at the expense of another.  What Christians have to offer is the chance to meet and experience the Creator of the Universe and all life within and a fulfilling life  that one seeks not to condemn or ridicule another but to share the happiness that they have found. 

It is very interesting to note that something that one does not believe in can cause one to spend so much time and effort to attempt to tear down or destroy.  If it was in fact nothing then it would have long ago been eradicated.   A survey of post on the Religion forum will easily reveal an attack mentality so why is that?  Most likely it is due to a past encounter with either Church, a Christian that either rubbed the person the wrong way or caused a resentment within that person.  Could be they blame God for not doing something to or for them or failure to give them something they felt they deserved.  Either way or however there is not usually found an argument for atheism that does not include Christianity within it in some attempt to make Christianity look bad or negative.   Bill and I seem to be the present target of that ire so we are now the "best" case for Atheism and not something that atheism has to offer in and of itself.

Glad we could help.

How big is that cross? You wouldn't think there would be room on there for all of them.

" What atheism has to offer is insecurity, no answers, a drawn out captivity to a grudge, anger, or resentment of Church, Religion, or anyone who represents such so that instead of enjoying life for what it has to offer and the beauty of what all God has given us they have to find personal satisfaction at the expense of another.  What Christians have to offer is the chance to meet and experience the Creator of the Universe and all life within and a fulfilling life  that one seeks not to condemn or ridicule another but to share the happiness that they have found.  "

Gb, an honest question and I expect an honest answer:  Do you really think that millions of American would embrace atheist if that were true?

Do you really think you are somehow happier than I just because you believe in Santa Clause? 

Yes, I realize folks like Jen, Jimi, Arob, DarkA and myself often seem abrasive to you. We know that.  After all, we are here to disagree with you. To call BS.

But you are witnessing only one small fascet of our persona.  It is probably hard for you to imagine me walking into my home smiling, embracing my lovely wife, wrestling with my children, scratching my dog on the belly and crying my balls off at the end of the movie "Ghost."  But I do.  We all do.

A study was actually done not long ago that gauged the happiness of people with belief.  The study actually found that people with deep religious beliefs are quite happy.  But the study found that people with strong disbelief are even a smidgen happier.  The "saddest people were those who didn't belong to any affiliated group.  The loners.  The unaffiliated who can be believers or non-believers.

So get off your high horse, sir.  We are just as happy as you, generally speaking. 

So get off your high horse, sir.  We are just as happy as you, generally speaking.

*******************************************************************************************************************

Unob, from what I've seen I'd have to say a heck of a lot happier.

I love it!!! GB everytime I see a Christian post as you just did it makes me all giggly. You can't wear your mask all the time and when it slips all that ugly comes gushing out.

You and Bill are perfect examples of what no one should want to be.

I am not angry at you or your god. You are no one of importance to me, and your god does not exist. What makes me angry is that you (and others like you) are determined that we live as you do and believe as you do, and if we don't then by golly you will start trying to rewrite history or make laws to force us to, or dumb down our youth with your Creationist "science". 

I am a happy person most of the time. Like everyone I get sad, when I read about stories like what happened to those children in Norway, or when I see a homeless person. I get sad when I see a stray dog or cat that someone has left on the side of the road to fend for its self. Lots of things make me sad, not havng a fake savior or supernatural creator has never given me one moments worth of sadness.

Now why don't you adjust your Christ-like mask and try and be a civil human being for a while. I for one am pretty tired of the ugly side of Christianity that you have been spewing all over the forums recently. Or just keep it up and keep proving my point. Its a free country so the choice is most definitely yours to make.

RP- Now DA, RP, you do know that the "oh holy one" will immediately wade in to tell you what miserable lives you live, how you're so bitter etc etc etc and with mock "concern" ask you if it's something wrong in your life, your business blah blah blah. GB will post again to the TD about the "attacks" and intrusions on "their" threads, and no ignore. He still hasn't learned to just not read people that upset him. Go figure. And DA, yes, when they get upset you definately do see that mask start to slip. It's very interesting too, to see who they align themselves with, and for people that don't like to see the attacks and bad stuff from atheists they have no problem upholding it and joining in when it's one of their own doing it. Then they wonder why we call them hypocrites. BUT let them have at it, it only shows them for what they are.

Dark gurl, what’s with the mask you keep referring to? Huh??

You obviously have read something or seen something on TV about a mask,

It sounds renaissance or something back when folk didn’t bathe and potty’d in their pants as a matter of decorum..

Use some other word. Please!! It’s grating.

In closing your whole response, with the exception of the "high horse" remark was a very thought out reply and a fair one.  I appreciate the tone of it and wish most of your replies was of the same form.  Yes I do honestly realize you or others on the forum are just as happy, could be happier or sadder depending on the day or week or events happening in your life.  What I posted however with little modification and making a bit more personal could mirror some of the remarks made toward us Christians and our belief. 

Heh. Jennifer..

I'm not atall bitter.

I'm havin' a blast.

Seein' as I only formally have a ninth-grade education, I like to come here and banter with the fabley folk what with all their "woe untos" and "spiritual' schtuff. 

Makes me feel like one of the smartest people in the room!

I like the short version.

Jennifer bitter old female whining revealed for what you are (deceitful).. your bitterness is getting ugly. not worth the effort to attempt to discuss it rationally anymore. your pride and bitterness obsessed with an corruptness that overwhelms you. alter the meaning of what others says anything you say certainly cannot be trusted

bitter to reason with. waste away in your own decrepit conscience, ugly bitterness and the arrogance of a morally bankrupt individual obsess beyond reasoning bitter Others see you for who you are . attacks and insults against Christians. bitterness and carnal heart/conscience atheist equivalent of Westboro Baptist Church a bitter vengeful empty woman who cannot find happiness within blame for your own personal misery .

Ach, so... Ich wurde verwechselt.

Du bist nicht ein Buffel....

Ich habe jetzt Ihre zahl.....

You aint

Ah yes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you HIGH?

Can you READ?

Is there a freakin' echo in here?

Sumpin' awful cagey goin' on here.

RP, Sie sind duftende erdnüsse?

=============================================

Ồ không! Giống như tuyệt vời lớn voi phân.

Tôi nghĩ rằng đó là thời gian để đưa con voi trở lại trong lồng.

Und ja, Ich kann. 

나의 허클베리 튀긴

Ok THAT translated from Korean is just a whole special kinda %$#*ed-up.

 I'm not too sure that came out the other end quite like ya meant it.

LMAO!

Translate it back! G'head.

Just keep an eye onya (thwi). Ya don't be wantin' to spill that stuff. Costs money, y'know.

 Oh I am SO laughing my ass off.

I speak some German. I spent some time there working back in the 80s.